What's the best way to handle PC hit points/hit dice?

[Felon]

The PHB's hit dice method lends itself to a great variation in how tough a character of a certain level might be. Certainly many DM's have no problems with that. Some may find that tougher characters are desirable, while some may want more vulnerable characters for a more "gritty" campaign. Others still may just want players whose hit points are average for their hit dice. And then there are alternative systems, like the Fort. save system presented in Mutants & Masterminds.

Feel free to post your personal method and the reasons why you find it to be ideal.

 

[jsewell]

If a player asks, I'll almost always allow them to reroll their hid die. That said, in the campaign I'm starting I'm considering either making all rolls that fall in the bottom 25% have one point added (i.e. d4, all 1s are 2s; d12 all 1s, 2s, and 3s are 4s) or giving max points for the first five levels. Haven't decided yet.

 

[Steel_Wind]

I didn't vote, but someone posted on the forums here last month about the method they use which is cool.

1 - PC's rolls hit die in the open; DM rolls in secret.
2- Player can choose his roll or take mine,

I liked that system.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Lately I have been having players roll, then if the roll is less than half the maximum defaulting to that. We went through a stretch where not all the players were able to make it, and the remaining characters were taking a beating.

The Auld Grump

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

I'm a fan of rolling and taking what you get. Sure, it can hurt a character, but it can also be very good if they roll high again and again(which I've seen more often than 1s or 2s)

 

[Qaballa]

One campaign I run is roll as per the PHB, other uses the same method as The Auld Gump's

 

[Felon]

My preferred method currently is to give the players average, rounded up for the first ten hit dice. I originally did this because our group was experimenting with Savage Species, and with big level adjustments factored in (where characters may go two or three levels without gaining more hit poins) a character can be crippled by a bad die roll.

But really, I don't see what's gained by rolling. These days I think it's safe to assume most DMs handle character generation by allowing a player assign their rolls to whatver ability scores they like. So if you want to play a barbarian, you can assign that 16 you rolled to Strength instead of that 8 you rolled first. Now, if you want to play a barbarian, and you keep rolling 1's and 2's on your hit dice, isn't that just as lame as having to play a weak barbarian or stupid wizard just because that's how the dice fell? In fact, isn't it even lamer, because you're actually getting more and more invested in a character that's looking more and more like a waste of time?

And conversely, characters that consistently roll above average can be unmanageable. I played one such character, who at 24th level had 200 more hit points than the next closest character (another fighter/barb). Some of that had to do with being a high-Con dwarf, but more had to do with just rolling amazingly well. Long before 24th-level, the DM was having trouble scaling encounters to challenge the party, because I could laugh at things that would annihlate 2/3 of the group.

Why should hit points be any less consistent of a benefit than skill points, BAB, or saving throw bonuses?

 

[Gruns]

My method.

I give the PCs max hit points for the first 3 levels. After that, when they level they roll and I roll. Take the higher roll. I often find that the times the PC rolls a 1 or 2, I do too, so it isn't an overpowered system at all.
Later!
Gruns

 

[Crothian]

Let the players roll

 

[Threedub]

Max hit points at 1st level.

Fixed average hit points every other level (round down on even, round up on odd). No rolling, no questions, and no "fun reduction" was found.